Adalat Paswan And Anr vs The State Of Bihar
2026 Latest Caselaw 651 Patna

Patna High Court

Adalat Paswan And Anr vs The State Of Bihar on 27 February, 2026

Author: Anshuman

Bench: Anshuman

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.684 of 2018

         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-140 Year-2004 Thana- NOORSARAI District- Nalanda
     ======================================================
1.   Adalat Paswan, Son of Late Bhagwat Paswan, Resident of Village- Kakriya
     P.S.- Noorsarai, District- Nalanda.
2.   S.B. Paswan, Son of Sheo Dayal Paswan, Resident of Village Ibrahimpur,
     P.S. Noorsarai, District- Nalanda.


                                                                      ... ... Appellant/s
                                           Versus
     The State Of Bihar


                                                                    ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
                                            with
                      CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 630 of 2018

         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-140 Year-2004 Thana- NOORSARAI District- Nalanda
     ======================================================
     Kara Paswan S/o Sheo Dayal Paswan, R/o Vill.- Ibrahimpur, P.S.- Case-
     Noorsarai, Distt.- Nalanda.


                                                                      ... ... Appellant/s
                                           Versus
     The State Of Bihar


                                                                    ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     (In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 684 of 2018)
     For the Appellant/s     :        Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate
                                      Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s    :        Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP
     (In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 630 of 2018)
 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.684 of 2018 dt.27-02-2026
                                           2/29




       For the Appellant/s      :        Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate
                                         Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
                                         Mr. Raghubir Chandrayan, Advocate
                                         Mr. Satyam Kumar, Advocate
                                         Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, Advocate
       For the Respondent/s     :        Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP
       ======================================================
       CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
                   and
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
       CAV JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI)

Date : 27-02-2026

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, arises from the judgment

of conviction, dated 23rd of April, 2018 and order of sentence,

dated 26th of April 2018, passed by the learned Presiding

Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif in

Sessions Trial No. 573 of 2006, arising out of Noorsarai

Police Station Case No. 140 of 2004. By the impugned

judgment, the learned trial court convicted the appellants

Adalat Paswan, Kara Paswan and S. B. Paswan under Section

302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and

sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for life

together with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default whereof to

undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years. One of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.684 of 2018 dt.27-02-2026

the original accused, Durgi Paswan, died during the trial and

the proceedings against him abated. Another accused,

Shivdayal Paswan, passed away during the pendency of this

appeal. The appellants were taken into judicial custody

immediately after their conviction and have remained in

custody since, except for the period when they were on bail

during trial.

2. The prosecution case, as disclosed in the

fardbeyan of Kamla Devi (PW-5) recorded on 17th of October,

2004 at about 10:45 a.m. by S.I., Shashi Shekhar at the place

of occurrence, is that her youngest son Buddhu Paswan had

returned from Delhi on the evening of 16 th of October, 2004.

On the next morning, i.e., on 17th of October 2004, at about

08:00 a.m., Buddhu left his home, saying that he would return

after sitting at the village Panchayat Bhawan and asked his

family that in the meantime they prepare breakfast. According

to the informant, as soon as her son sat at the Panchayat

Bhawan, five accused persons: Durgi Paswan, S.B. Paswan,

Kara Paswan, Shivdayal Paswan and Adalat Paswan, all

armed with pistols, coming from the west, approached him.

Seeing them, Buddhu tried to flee but was caught near the

Panchayat Bhawan and shot repeatedly, receiving three to four Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.684 of 2018 dt.27-02-2026

bullets in the head and chest, resulting in his instantaneous

death. The accused then fled. The informant claimed that she

herself witnessed the occurrence and that her daughter-in-law

Dhanmanti Devi (PW-3) and one Makho Devi (PW 3's

maternal uncle's wife) also saw the accused fleeing from the

place of occurrence. The motive was stated to be long-

standing enmity between the two families.

3. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Noorsarai P.S.

Case No. 140 of 2004 was registered under Sections 302/34

IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. After investigation, a

charge-sheet was submitted. The case was committed to the

Court of Sessions. Charges were framed on 31st of August,

2006. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined seven witnesses. PW-1

Raj Kishore Prasad and PW-2 Tyagi Paswan were formal

inquest witnesses. PW-3 Dhanmanti Devi is the wife of the

deceased. PW-4 Dr. Ramanand Prasad Singh conducted the

post-mortem examination. PW-5 Kamla Devi is the informant

and claimed to be an eyewitness. PW-6 Manish Ranjan proved

the FIR and fardbeyan. PW-7 Hemant Kumar is the

Investigating Officer. The defence tendered certified copies of

certain counter-cases involving the informant's family but did Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.684 of 2018 dt.27-02-2026

not exhibit them. The accused, in their statements, recorded

under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the allegations and claimed

innocence.

5. The learned trial court convicted the three

surviving appellants, primarily relying upon the testimony of

PW-5, which it found reliable because the defence had not

specifically challenged the core allegation of shooting during

cross-examination. The evidence of PW-3 was treated as

corroborative of the fleeing of the accused and the medical

evidence of PW-4 was held to support the prosecution version

of close-range firearm injuries. Enmity was acknowledged but

treated only as motive and not as a ground for false

implication.

6. Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned Senior Advocate

appearing on behalf of the appellants has assailed the

judgment on multiple grounds. He submits that the entire

prosecution case rests on the interested testimony of two

closely related witnesses: the mother and the wife of the

deceased, without any independent corroboration. He

highlights material contradictions between their depositions,

particularly PW-3's admission that the accused had covered

their faces with cloth, which destroys the claim of clear Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.684 of 2018 dt.27-02-2026

identification by PW-5. He also pointed out the highly

unnatural conduct of PW-5, who claimed to have been sitting

with her son; saw the accused approaching the deceased with

arms; but neither raised an alarm nor intervened physically.

7. Mr. Sharma further draws attention of the Court

to the glaring discrepancy in the place of occurrence. While

PW-5 in her deposition as well as in her fardbeyan asserted

that the deceased was shot and died right near the veranda of

the Panchayat Bhawan with blood spilled on the floor, the

Investigating Officer (PW-7) categorically stated that the body

was found in the adjacent fallow land and that not a single

drop of blood or any other mark was noticed at the spot. He

emphasises the complete absence of recovery of weapons,

empty cartridges or blood-stained earth, and the failure to

examine any independent villager despite the occurrence

having allegedly taken place at a public place in broad

daylight.

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor

supports the judgment, contending that the testimony of PW-5

is consistent with the fardbeyan and is duly corroborated by

the medical evidence. He submits that the defence failed to

impeach the core allegation during cross-examination and that Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.684 of 2018 dt.27-02-2026

minor discrepancies are natural after a lapse of years.

9. We have carefully perused the entire lower court

records, the impugned judgment, the memo of appeal and the

evidence on record. We have heard learned counsel for both

sides at length.

10. We now proceed to analyse the evidence of each

witness in the light of settled principles of law.

11. The fardbeyan of PW-5 is prompt and she

named all the five accused with specific parentage. However,

it claims that all the people of the village saw the occurrence,

yet no independent villager was examined. In Gopal Krishnaji

Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif, reported in 1968 SCC OnLine

SC 63, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the best

evidence is withheld, an adverse inference under Section

114(g) of the Evidence Act is permissible. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in paragraph 5 of the aforesaid judgement has

observed as hereunder:

"5. On behalf of the appellant reference was made to the Area Book, Ex. 66 of the year 1890. The entry shows the name of Laxmibal widow of Govind Gopal Ketkar under the heading "bl eps ukao" (name of the person). Exhibit 67 is the entry from the Phalani Book for the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.684 of 2018 dt.27-02-2026

year 1897 and shows the land as "Kilyacha Dongar" and under the column "bl eps ukao" is shown the name of Laxmibai widow of Govind Gopal, Exhibit 68 is of the same year from the revision Phalani containing similar entry with the map attached. In Exhibit 70 the name of Laxmibai is shown as "Khatedar" for the year 1906. In the remarks column there is an entry "one built well, one pakka built masjid, one Dargah, one tomb". Exhibit 71 is an entry for the year 1915 from Akar Phod Potrok and in the column of "Kabjedar the name of Rukminibai Hari appears with regard to Plot 134 Thereafter, in the record of rights for the year 1913. Exhibit. 76, the name of the predecessor of the appellant is shown. On the basis of these entries it was submitted by Mr Gokhale that the ownership of the Plot was with the appellant and not with the Dargah. But there are important circumstances in this case which indicate that the appellant is not the owner of Survey Plot No. 134. Exhibits 64 and 65 are significant in this connection. Exhibit 64 is an entry from the "Sud" in Marathi for the year 1858 in

(Revisional Survey Number). The original Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.684 of 2018 dt.27-02-2026

survey number of this Plot was 24 and it was known as "Kilyacha Dongar". The total area is shown to be 249 acres and 24 gunthas. It is shown as "Khalsa" land. Kharaba is shown as 89 acres 24 gunthas and the balance of the area is shown as 160 acres. In the last column the name of the cultivator is not mentioned but it is shown as "Khapachi". It is significant that the name of the Ketkar family is absent from this record. No convincing reason was furnished on behalf of the appellant to show why his name was not entered in the "Sud". It is also important to notice that the appellant has furnished no documentary evidence to show how his family acquired title to the land from the earliest time; there is no sanad or grant produced by the appellant to show that he had acquired title to the land. It further appears that the appellant's family did not assert any title to the land at the time of the survey made in 1858: otherwise there is no reason why its name was not entered in the "Sud" of the year 1858. It is true that there are a number of entries subsequent to the year 1890 and 1897 in which the Ketkar family is shown as the "Khatedar or the occupant but these entries are not of much significance since Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.684 of 2018 dt.27-02-2026

the Ketkar family was in the fiduciary position of a manager of the Dargah and was lawfully in possession of Survey Plot No: 134 in that capacity. There is also another important circumstance that the appellant has no lands of his own near Plot No. 134 and the nearest lands he owns are in Bandhanwadi which are admittedly 3. % to 4 miles away from the top of the hill. There is also the important admission made by the appellant in the course of his evidence that there are 2 or 3 tombs behind the Musaferkhana. He stated further that there is no cemetery or burial ground in Survey No. 134". But this evidence is in direct conflict with the statement of the appellant in the previous case that "Round about the Dargah many people die every year.... Anyone that died there, whether Hindu, Muslim or Parsee if he has no heirs is buried there". He also conceded that there is one public tank known as "Chasmyachi Vihir near the Dargah and there are 5 wells near the Dargah and five boundaries "Aranas"

about one mile from the Dargah. Lastly, reference should be made to the important circumstance that the appellant has not produced the account of the Dargah income. In the course of his Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.684 of 2018 dt.27-02-2026

evidence the appellant admitted that he

but he did not produce any accounts to substantiate his contention. He also admitted that "he had got record of the Dargah income and that account was kept separately". But the appellant has not produced either his own accounts or the account of the Dargah to show as to how the income from Plot No. 134 was dealt with. Mr Gokhale, however, argued that it was no part of the appellant's duty to produce the accounts unless he was called upon to do so and the onus was upon the respondents to prove the case and to show that the Dargah was the owner of Plot No. 134. We are unable to accept this argument as correct. Even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party the Court may draw an adverse Inference if he withholds important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts at issue. It is not, in our opinion, a sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the best evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon the issues in controversy and to rely upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof, in Murugesam Pillai v.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.684 of 2018 dt.27-02-2026

Manickavasaka Pandara Lord Shaw observed as follows:

"A practice has grown up in Indian procedure of those in possession of important documents or information lying by, trusting to the abstract doctrine of the onus of proof, and failing, accordingly, to furnish to the Courts the best material for its decision. With regard to third parties, this may be right enough they have no responsibility for the conduct of the suit, but with regard to the parties to the suit it is, in Their Lordships' opinion, an inversion of sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the written evidence in their possession which would throw light upon the proposition"

This passage was cited with approval by this Court in a recent decision- Biltu Ram v. Jainandan Prasad. In that case, reliance was placed on behalf of the defendants upon the following passage from the decision of the Judicial Committee in Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh:

"But it is open to a litigant to refrain from producing any documents that he considers irrelevant; if the other Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.684 of 2018 dt.27-02-2026

litigant is dissatisfied it is for him to apply for an affidavit of documents and he can obtain inspection and production of all that appears to him in such affidavit to be relevant and proper. If he fails so to do, neither he nor the Court at his suggestion is entitled to draw any inference as to the contents of any such documents."

But Shah, J., speaking for the Court, stated:

"The observations of the judicial Committee do not support the proposition that unless a party is called upon expressly to make an affidavit of documents and inspection and production of documents is demanded, the Court cannot raise an adverse inference against a party withholding evidence in his possession. Such a rule is inconsistent with Illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, and also an impressive body of authority."

12. The fardbeyan also asserts that the deceased was

shot near the Panchayat Bhawan on the west side and died on

the spot. This assertion is directly contradicted by the

evidence of the Investigating Officer.

13. PW-1 Raj Kishore Prasad and PW-2 Tyagi Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.684 of 2018 dt.27-02-2026

Paswan are formal inquest witnesses. PW-1 admitted in his

cross-examination that the Inspector did not inspect the body

in his presence and that he signed a pre-written paper without

knowing its contents. PW-2 was declared hostile.

14. PW-3 Dhanmanti Devi, wife of the deceased,

deposed that she heard gunshots; ran to the spot with Makho

Devi; and saw the accused fleeing west with pistols. In cross-

examination, she admitted that the accused were wearing cloth

over their faces and that she came to know the names from her

mother-in-law. She was not an eyewitness to the shooting.

This admission of face-covering creates a direct contradiction

with PW-5's claim of clear identification.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has addressed

material contradictions in witness depositions regarding the

identification of the accused in several judgments, particularly

where inconsistencies arise on whether the accused's face was

visible or covered (e.g., by masks), rendering the

identification unreliable and entitling the accused to the

benefit of doubt. Such contradictions, if they strike at the core

of the prosecution's case by creating reasonable doubt on the

perpetrator's identity, are fatal and go to the root of the matter.

A key case aligning closely with the present facts is Govind Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.684 of 2018 dt.27-02-2026

Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2025 INSC

1399. The relevant portions of the said judgment, elucidating

the facts and law are as follows:

"7. Heeralal Hidko (PW-1) submitted a merg intimation6 (oral report) to the SHO, Police Station Bhanupratappur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh, on 18th April, 2021, at about 7:25 a.m., alleging inter alia: -

"I am a Native resident of Village Iragaon, Durgupara, I work in Farming sector. Like every day routine, on 17/04/2021, my son Bivan and daughter-in-law Sukmai Hidko both (sic) were sleeping inside the Farm hut around 11:30 my daughter-in-law Sukmai came home and told me that "2 unknown masked persons came at around 11:00 one of whom was tall and another was short-heighted and thin and held sickle In his hand. They called and woke up my husband Bivan and took him away from the farm hut, I followed them and stood on the door. After a while, my husband screamed "Aye Daayi! O Daayii" I got scared and ran away." As soon as I got this news, I took Sahdev Kadiyam, Kushal Kawde and Dhannaram Anchala, and others with me to my field and in the light Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.684 of 2018 dt.27-02-2026

of my torch, I found my son Bivan lying dead, soaked in blood. My son is dead, some unknown person has killed my son with a sharp weapon. Due to the midnight and it being a forest area, I took care of the dead body of my son, and in the morning, I came here to report."

8. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, First Information Report7 No. 106 of 2021, dated 18th April, 2021, came to be registered at the Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC against unknown assailants.

9. Evidently, a perusal of the FIR (Exh. P/2) makes it clear that the informant Heeralal Hidko (PW-1) was not an eyewitness to the incident; rather, his knowledge of the occurrence was entirely based on the information furnished to him by Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2), his daughter-in-law and wife of the deceased Bivan Hidko.

10. The statement of Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2), wife of the deceased and daughter-in-law of Heeralal Hidko (PW-1), under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19738 came to be recorded on 21st April, 2021, i.e., after four days of the incident Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.684 of 2018 dt.27-02-2026

and at that point of time, for the first time, it was alleged by the lady that during the assault being made on her husband, the mask of one of the assailants came off and thus, she was able to identify the said assailant as being the appellant-Govind Mandavi.

...

39. Analysis of these facts leads to the irrefutable conclusion that the two star prosecution witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) have attempted to modulate and improve their versions while deposing on oath. Their testimonies are full of embellishments and contradictions.

...

45. Hence, we are of the firm view that the omission of the names of the accused in the FIR (Exh. P/2), which was lodged on the basis of the information provided by Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2) to Heeralal Hidko (PW-1) is fatal as it goes to the very root of the matter. The said omission completely impeaches the credibility of the prosecution's case."

16. PW-4 Dr. Ramanand Prasad Singh proved the

post-mortem report. He found multiple lacerated firearm

wounds with charring on the entry wounds, indicating short-

range firing, and recovered two bullets from the body. While Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.684 of 2018 dt.27-02-2026

this evidence establishes homicidal death by firearm, it does

not connect any of the appellants to the crime.

17. In Surendra Koli v. State of Uttar Pradesh,

reported in 2025 INSC 1308, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

reiterated that medical evidence can prove the nature of

injuries but cannot prove the authorship of the crime in the

absence of reliable ocular or forensic link. The relevant

paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:

"13. The forensic analysis reinforces that conclusion. Extensive searches of D-5 by expert teams did not yield human bloodstains, remains, or transfer patterns consistent with multiple homicides and dismemberment inside the house. The DNA work undertaken by the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics in Hyderabad linked certain remains to families of missing persons. That science aided only identification. It did not prove authorship of homicide by the petitioner within D-5. Knives and an axe were exhibited without proof of blood, tissue, or hair consistent with use in the alleged crimes. There was no credible chain of custody or expert testimony establishing that a domestic help with no medical training could perform the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.684 of 2018 dt.27-02-2026

precise dismemberment described. These gaps were central to the acquittals in the twelve cases. They are equally present here."

18. PW-5 Kamla Devi is the star witness of the

prosecution. She claims to have been sitting with her son at

the Panchayat Bhawan; to have seen the five-armed accused

approaching from the west; to have seen her son being caught

and shot four times near the veranda; and to have seen blood

on the floor and on her own sari. Yet in cross-examination, she

admitted that she was not afraid; did not run away; did not

stand between the assailants and her son except for a feeble

protest; and that she held her son's head but did not fall on his

body. This conduct is wholly unnatural for a mother

witnessing the murder of her son.

19. In Shivasharanappa & Ors. v. State of

Karnataka, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 705, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that unnatural conduct of witnesses

creates serious doubt on their presence and reliability. The

relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced

hereinbelow:

"22. Thus, the behaviour of the witnesses or their reactions would differ from situation to situation and individual Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.684 of 2018 dt.27-02-2026

to individual. Expectation of uniformity in the reaction of witnesses would be unrealistic but the court cannot be oblivious of the fact that even taking into account the unpredictability of human conduct and lack of uniformity in human reaction, whether in the circumstances of the case, the behaviour is acceptably natural allowing the variations. If the behaviour is absolutely unnatural, the testimony of the witness may not deserve credence and acceptance."

20. PW-5 also feigned ignorance of multiple

criminal cases against her family members, which the defence

had brought on record. In Aslam @ Imran v. State of Madhya

Pradesh, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 670, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court observed that in cases of deep-rooted enmity,

the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out and the

evidence of interested witnesses must be subjected to

heightened scrutiny.

21. The case related to the deceased Guddu, who

was a history-sheeter with multiple criminal cases, including

attempt to murder, and there was admitted prior enmity

between him and the appellant. The prosecution here as well

relied on the testimony of an interested eyewitness (PW-1, the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.684 of 2018 dt.27-02-2026

deceased's brother), but the Supreme Court acquitted the

appellant, giving the benefit of doubt due to evidentiary lapses

and the impact of enmity. For the sake of reiteration, the

paragraph where the principle was upheld in the judgment is

as follows:

"22. It is a settled law that enmity is a double-edged weapon. On one hand, it provides motive, on the other hand it also does not rule out the possibility of false implication. From the nature of the evidence placed on record by the prosecution, the possibility of the present appellant being falsely implicated on account of previous enmity cannot be ruled out. In our opinion, therefore, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt."

22. PW-6 Manish Ranjan is a formal witness who

proved the FIR and fardbeyan. His evidence is neutral but

underscores the fact that the recorder of the fardbeyan, S.I.

Shashi Shekhar, was never examined.

23. PW-7 Hemant Kumar, the Investigating Officer,

in his cross-examination made devastating admissions. He

found not a single drop of blood or anything else at the spot;

the body was lying in the fallow land adjacent to the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.684 of 2018 dt.27-02-2026

community hall; no site map with plot numbers was prepared;

no statements of boundary witnesses were recorded; no station

diary entries were made regarding movement; investigation

was handed over midway to another officer who was never

examined; and the recorder of the fardbeyan was not

examined. These are not minor irregularities. In Pankaj v.

State of Rajasthan, reported in (2016) 16 SCC 192, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the genesis and

manner of the incident itself are doubtful, conviction cannot

be sustained. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no. 25

of the aforesaid judgement has held as under:

"25. It is a well-settled principle of law that when the genesis and the manner of the incident is doubtful, the accused cannot be convicted. Inasmuch as the prosecution has failed to establish the circumstances in which the appellant was alleged to have fired at the deceased, the entire story deserves to be rejected. When the evidence produced by the prosecution has neither quality nor credibility, it would be unsafe to rest conviction upon such evidence. After having considered the matter thoughtfully, we find that the evidence on record in the case is not Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.684 of 2018 dt.27-02-2026

sufficient to bring home the guilt of the appellant. In such circumstances, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt."

24. The complete absence of any recovery of

weapon, empty cartridges or blood-stained earth further

weakens the prosecution case.

25. In Munna Lal v. State of U.P., reported in

(2023) 18 SCC 661, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that the

failure to seize the weapon of offence dents the prosecution

story, leading to the benefit of doubt for the accused. The

relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced below:

"40. In the facts of the present case, particularly conspicuous gaps in the prosecution case and the evidence of PW 2 and PW 3 not being wholly reliable, this Court holds the present case as one where examination of the investigating officer was vital since he could have adduced the expected evidence. His non-examination creates a material lacuna in the effort of the prosecution to nail the appellants, thereby creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution case."

26. The statements of the accused under Section 313

Cr.P.C. are simple denials and a plea of innocence. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.684 of 2018 dt.27-02-2026

27. As per the law laid down in Selvi v. State of

Karnataka, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 263, no adverse

inference can be drawn from such denials. The relevant

paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced below:

"141. At this juncture, it must be reiterated that Indian law incorporates the "rule against adverse inferences from silence" which is operative at the trial stage. As mentioned earlier, this position is embodied in a conjunctive reading of Article 20(3) of the Constitution and Sections 161(2), 313(3) and proviso (b) of Section 315(1) CrPC. The gist of this position is that even though an accused is a competent witness in his/her own trial, he/she cannot be compelled to answer questions that could expose him/her to incrimination and the trial Judge cannot draw adverse inferences from the refusal to do so. This position is cemented by prohibiting any of the parties from commenting on the failure of the accused to give evidence. This rule was lucidly explained in the English case of Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1935 AC 462 : 1935 All ER Rep 1 (HL)] , AC at p. 481:

"The 'right to silence' is a Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.684 of 2018 dt.27-02-2026

principle of common law and it means that normally courts or tribunals of fact should not be invited or encouraged to conclude, by parties or prosecutors, that a suspect or an accused is guilty merely because he has refused to respond to questions put to him by the police or by the Court."

28. The prosecution case, therefore, rests entirely on

the interested testimony of PW-3 and PW-5, which suffers

from material contradictions, unnatural conduct and lack of

any independent corroboration. The place of occurrence, as

alleged by the eyewitnesses, is not proved; on the contrary, the

IO's evidence shows a different spot with no objective signs

of the alleged shooting. The investigation is thoroughly

defective. Enmity, while providing a possible motive, equally

provides a motive for false implication.

29. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of

Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in paragraph 163 observed as follows:

"163. We then pass on to another important point which seems to have been completely missed by the High Court. It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.684 of 2018 dt.27-02-2026

prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(1973) 2 SCC 808 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1048 : AIR 1973 SC 2773 : (1974) 1 SCR 722 : 1974 Cri LJ 1] this Court made the following observations: [SCC para 25, p.

820: SCC (Cri) p. 1060] "Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases, is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence."

30. The same principle has been reiterated in the

case of Lal Mandi v. State of W.B., reported in (1995) 3 SCC

603. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no. 5 of the

said judgement has observed as follows:

"5. To say the least, the approach of the High Court is totally fallacious. In an appeal against Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.684 of 2018 dt.27-02-2026

conviction, the appellate court has the duty to itself appreciate the evidence on the record and if two views are possible on the appraisal of the evidence, the benefit of reasonable doubt has to be given to an accused. It is not correct to suggest that the "Appellate Court cannot legally interfere with" the order of conviction where the trial court has found the evidence as reliable and that it cannot substitute the findings of the Sessions Judge by its own, if it arrives at a different conclusion on reassessment of the evidence. The observation made in Tota Singh case [(1987) 2 SCC 529 :

1987 SCC (Cri) 381 : AIR 1987 SC 1083] , which was an appeal against acquittal, have been misunderstood and mechanically applied. Though, the powers of an appellate court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal and an appeal against conviction are equally wide but the considerations which weigh with it while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal and in an appeal against conviction are distinct and separate. The presumption of innocence of an accused which gets strengthened on his acquittal is not available on his conviction. An appellate Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.684 of 2018 dt.27-02-2026

court may give every reasonable weight to the conclusions arrived at by the trial court but it must be remembered that an appellate court is duty-bound, in the same way as the trial court, to test the evidence extrinsically as well as intrinsically and to consider as thoroughly as the trial court, all the circumstances available on the record so as to arrive at an independent finding regarding guilt or innocence of the convict. An appellate court fails in the discharge of one of its essential duties, if it fails to itself appreciate the evidence on the record and arrive at an independent finding based on the appraisal of such evidence. The High Court failed to do so and its view is patently erroneous. Though this Court does not generally reappraise the evidence which has been considered by two courts below in an appeal by special leave but since the consideration of the evidence by the High Court was not proper, we have ourselves analysed the evidence on the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties."

31. Applying the above principles, we are of the

considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the

guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The view Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.684 of 2018 dt.27-02-2026

taken by the learned trial court is not sustainable in law.

32. The judgment of conviction, dated 23 rd of April,

2018 and order of sentence, dated 26 th of April 2018, passed

by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Nalanda

at Bihar Sharif in Sessions Trial No. 573 of 2006, arising out

of Noorsarai Police Station Case No. 140 of 2004 are perverse

and are hereby set aside.

32. The appeal is allowed, on contest.

33. The appellants are acquitted of all charges.

34. The appellants shall be released at once.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

(Dr. Anshuman, J) skm/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                24.02.2026
Uploading Date          27.02.2026
Transmission Date       27.02.2026